This paper investigates why reflexives, but not pronouns, are not compatible with the fragment or null argument answer to the wh-question where the third person occurs. The reason is because the occurrence of the (null) topic in the sentence-initial position is coindexed with its following reflexives, but not pronouns, which obeys Principle A. The (non-)occurrence of topic does not give rise to any essential difference in meaning. In the sentences containing a fragment or a null argument, an overt topic can always occur in the same sentences. One syllable pronoun ku "he" can function as an anaphor only when it occurs twice in the argument position of a simplex sentence with a null topic. What I want to show in connection with a null argument phenomenon is that an occurrence of the (null) topic in the sentence initial position can function as an antecedent of an anaphor and further identify the interpretation of a null argument. It is also demonstrated that there can arise a controversial issue on A-binding.